Englishes
Kum Young Chang
Master’s Thesis in Education Spring Term 2019 Faculty of Education and Psychology University of Jyväskylä
Chang, Kum Young. 2019. Master’s Thesis in Education. University of Jyväskylä. Faculty of Education and Psychology.
As English has been more and more used all around the world, there has been calling for more inclusion of World Englishes (WEs) in English education (Dufva, Suni, Aro, & Salo, 2011; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Orikasa, 2016; Pennycook, 2008; Schulzke, 2014). English education in Korea, however, still centers on native speaker models (Ahn & Kang, 2017; Fayzrakhmanova, 2016; Song, 2013), relatively little research investigating WEs from teachers’ and students’
perspectives. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to explore Korean teachers’
and learners’ perceptions of WEs, building on previous work on WEs.
Questionnaires, which included both close-ended and open-ended questions, were designed and given to 51 teachers and 79 students in Korea, together with sample speeches representing different WEs. The questions asked participants’ understanding of WEs, English varieties they had learned, taught, and been exposed to, and their attitudes towards including diverse WEs in English education.
The results indicated that the participants, in general, had some knowledge of WEs, had mostly learned, taught, and been exposed to American English, and were positive about incorporating varying WEs in English education although some of them were rather skeptical of the inclusion.
Comparing the two groups, the teachers showed a better understanding of WEs, and they were more open to the inclusion.
The study concludes that English education in Korea needs to be changed into teaching/learning English as a practical language, and diversify the language, reflecting voices from teachers and students. It also suggests that information on WEs which is widely shared by research literature should also be shared with teachers and students before they make any educational choice regarding WEs.
learners, perceptions of WEs
1 INTRODUCTION ... 6
2 WORLD ENGLISHES ... 9
2.1 World Englishes ... 9
2.2 English as a Lingua Franca and English as an International Language ... 11
3 MODELS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION ... 14
3.1 Native Speaker Model ... 14
3.2 WEs Approach ... 16
4 ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN KOREA ... 20
5 PERCEPTIONS OF WEs ... 24
5.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of WEs ... 24
5.2 Learners’ Perceptions of WEs ... 27
6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS ... 32
7 METHODS... 33
7.1 Participants ... 33
7.2 Instrument ... 36
7.3 Procedure ... 38
7.4 Reliability ... 39
7.5 Ethical Solutions... 40
7.6 Analysis ... 40
8 RESULTS ... 44
8.1 Knowledge of WEs ... 44
8.2.1 Varieties of English that Had Been Learned ... 46
8.2.2 Varieties of English that Had Taught/Been Taught in School ... 47
8.2.3 Varieties of English that the Participants Were Exposed to ... 49
8.3 Attitudes towards Including Diverse WEs in English Education ... 50
8.3.1 Attitudes towards Including Diverse WEs in English Teaching/Learning ... 50
8.3.2 Attitudes towards Including Diverse WEs in English Tests ... 55
8.3.3 Willingness to Change Teaching/Learning Practices regarding WEs ... 60
9 DISCUSSION ... 65
9.1 Knowledge of WEs ... 65
9.2 English Use ... 67
9.3 Inclusion of WEs in Teaching/Learning and Tests ... 68
9.4 Teaching/Learning Practices regarding WEs ... 73
9.5 ’I don’t Know’ Responses ... 74
9.6 Further Comments ... 76
9.7 Summary ... 77
9.8 Implications for Pedagogy ... 77
9.9 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Studies ... 78
REFERENCES ... 80
1 INTRODUCTION
As the world becomes more interdependent and English is increasingly used as an instrument of global communication, English has been recognized as an international language, not limited only to countries where English is used as a first language (L1) (Schulzke, 2014; Kim & Kim, 2018; Sung, 2013). In fact, English nowadays is more used by non-native speakers than by native speakers (Abeywickrama, 2013; Ahn & Kang, 2017; Barnes, 2005; Foley, 2007; Gilmore, 2007; Kim & Kim, 2018; Orikasa, 2016; Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2017; Schulzke, 2014; Sung, 2013; Young & Walsh, 2010). Moreover, the majority of interaction in English by non-native speakers is with other non-native speakers than with native-speakers, and this proportion is expected to increase (Ahn & Kang, 2017;
Barnes, 2005; Orikasa, 2016; Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2017; Sung, 2013; Sung, 2016; Young & Walsh, 2010). Accordingly, there has been calling for more inclusion of World Englishes (WEs) ─namely, different varieties of English─ in English language learning and teaching contexts as legitimate languages; as English, like any other language, is susceptible to change, any attempt to unify different WEs into one with a specific variety at its heart is not only unattainable but also undesirable (Dufva, Suni, Aro, & Salo, 2011; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Orikasa, 2016; Pennycook, 2008; Schulzke, 2014).
However, in many of English language learning contexts, especially in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) contexts, language instruction still centers on a native speaker model, where native-like command of English is encouraged and students are assessed according to native speaker English standards (Gu & So, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Young & Walsh, 2010). Moreover, English teachers and learners do not necessarily have a clear idea of WEs, nor do they think WEs should be incorporated in language learning and teaching;
many of them favor Inner Circle Englishes (e.g., American English, British English, and Canadian English) over other varieties, regarding them as the standard while the others seen as non-standard (Abeywickrama, 2013; Ahn,
2015; Gu & So, 2015; Kang, 2015; Lee & Hsieh, 2018; Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2017; Sung, 2016; Takahashi, 2017; Young & Walsh, 2010).
South Korea (Korea hereafter) is one of the countries that have made the choice of a native speaker model. Although its national curriculum says that English is a global language (Song, 2013), embracing cross-linguistic and cross- cultural diversity, English language education in Korea is still based on native speaker norms, mainly those of American English (Ahn, 2015; Ahn & Kang, 2017; Fayzrakhmanova, 2016; Song, 2013). Furthermore, it appears that relatively little attention has been given to perceptions of WEs that Korean teachers and learners of English have, who are thought to be among the most important stakeholders in language learning and teaching; although Korean teachers and students seem to have a preference for Inner Circle Englishes in general (Ahn, 2015; Lee & Hsieh, 2018), there has also been a contradictory finding showing Korean students’ positive attitudes towards Korean accents and non-native speakers (Ahn and Kang, 2017).
This study, therefore, aims at exploring Korean teachers’ and students’
perceptions of WEs, building on the previous work on WEs. More specifically, this study aims to examine Korean teachers’ and students’ attitudes towards including more diverse WEs in English language education in Korea as well as English varieties they have used and their understanding of WEs.
The next chapter in this paper (i.e., Chapter 2) describes the key concept of the study, WEs, by reviewing the literature on WEs and related concepts of English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) and English as an International Language (EIL). Chapter 3 introduces two models for English language education (i.e., native speaker model and WEs approach), examining the pros and cons of each model. Chapter 4 describes English education in Korea, which is based on the native speaker model. .
Chapter 5 presents the findings of previous studies on WEs, particularly focusing on teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of WEs. Chapter 6, then, defines the aim of the study, stating the research questions.
Chapter 7 details the methodology of the study: participant recruitment, the instrument employed, procedures, and data analysis. It also discusses the reliability and ethical considerations of the study. Chapter 8 presents the research results, answering to the research questions. Chapter 9 further discusses the results, relating them to the previous research findings. It also provides suggestions for further studies, together with its limitations.
2 WORLD ENGLISHES
2.1 World Englishes
It is true that in many parts of the world, especially in EFL contexts, native- speaker varieties of English, mostly American English and British English, have been learned and taught, being recognized as standard Englishes (Gu & So, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Sung, 2016).
However, with the increasing use of English for global communication, along with the exponentially expanding use of English by non-native speakers, English has been gradually accepted as an international language, rather than the language of certain countries. According to estimates, while there are approximately one billion speakers of English around the world, about 400 million of them are native speakers while 600 million are presumed to be non- native speakers (Orikasa, 2016; Sung, 2013). The population of English speakers as a second (L2) or foreign language (FL) is predicted to increase whereas that of native speakers is likely to remain stable (Barnes, 2005; Orikasa, 2016).
Furthermore, it has been expected that more interactions in the English language will occur between non-native English speakers than between native and non-native speakers (Orikasa, 2016; Sung, 2013).
Indeed, as early as 1980s, Kachru (1985) noted the spread and internationalization of English across the world, using the term ’world Englishes’ to represent “a unique cultural pluralism, and a linguistic heterogeneity and diversity” (p. 14) in the English language. According to him, WEs can be discussed in terms of three circles: (a) the Inner Circle where English is spoken as a primary language (e.g., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US), (b) the Outer Circle (or Extended Circle) where English is one of two or more official languages (e.g., India, Malaysia, and Singapore), and (c) the Expanding Circle where English is used as a foreign language (e.g., China, Greece, Japan, and Korea) (Kachru, 1985). By pointing out “the diffusion of and resultant innovations in English around the world” (p. 12), Kachru (1985)
further addressed the need for understanding linguistic diversity and creativity, escaping from the traditional notions of standards and from the dichotomy of native and non-native speakers.
The term of WEs, then, highlights “the fact that there are multiple and varied models of English across cultures and that English is not limited to countries where it has traditionally been regarded as a mother tongue”
(Richards, Schmidt, Kendricks, & Kim, 2002, p. 591).
According to McKay (2018), WEs can be further discussed in three perspectives. The first is “a broad definition, which includes all varieties of English spoken around the world” (McKay, 2018, p. 10), including not only Englishes of Inner Circle countries but also Englishes of Outer Circle countries and of Expanding Circle countries. The second definition of WEs is a narrow one that includes only those varieties in Outer Circle countries such as Malaysian English and Nigerian English (McKay, 2018). The third definition of WEs is similar with the second one, but it emphasizes “the pluricentric view of English in which equal respect is given to all varieties of English” (McKay, 2018, p. 10). In this study, the broad definition of WEs (i.e., the first definition) will be used in order to avoid any possible confusion.
The linguistic creativity in English and its multicultural character are found in its uses around the world, in vocabularies, discourse strategies, speech acts, and writing including creative writing (e.g., novels and poetry), as well as in accents (Kachru, 1985). Clearly, WEs are more than spoken language accents.
However, the majority of recent studies on WEs in language education appear to have mainly focused on spoken language, noting different accents in different varieties of English (e.g., Abeywickrama, 2013; Ahn & Kang, 2017; Lee
& Hsieh, 2018; Orikasa, 2016; Sung, 2016). Indeed, it seems difficult to talk about WEs, particularly focusing on written language, considering that many of WEs do not yet have their own dictionaries, grammars, or writing conventions (Kirkpatrick, 2006). For example, Malaysian English has no strict rules on grammar, nor is it convincingly codified although it has become “an unmarked language of everyday information communication” in Malaysia with its distinct
phonology and lexical items “as a carrier of distinctly Malaysian identity”
(Schneider, 2003, p. 55).
Another example can be found in Singlish, which is the colloquial English spoken in Singapore, comprising “elements of English, Malay, Hokkien, Mandarine-Chinese and Cantonese” (Tan, 2017, p. 87). Singlish has received much attention as a language with its own grammar, lexis, and phonology;
many researchers have provided systematic analysis of the language, and some dictionaries have tried to include some of Singapore English in their pages (Chew, 2013; Salazar, 2018). However, with the launch of the Speak Good English Movement in 2000, a government-initiated campaign promoting the use of grammatically correct English in Singapore (Chew, 2013; Tan, 2017), efforts to codify Singlish seem to have remained stalled.
Therefore, WEs in this study will be reduced to spoken language accents with the focus being on listening and speaking aspects in language learning and teaching contexts, although it must be fully acknowledged that WEs are much more spoken language accents.
2.2 English as a Lingua Franca and English as an International Language
Closely related to but different from WEs are the phenomena of ELF and EIL, which have been relatively recently discussed, compared to “the much more firmly established field of world Englishes” (Jenkins, 2009, p. 200).
English as a Lingua Franca (ELF) refers to “the common language of choice among speakers who come from different linguacultural backgrounds”
(Jenkins, 2009, p. 200). In other words, ELF is not a particular linguistic variety but “a contact language by speakers from varying linguacultural backgrounds, where both the community of speakers and the location can be changing and are often not associated with a specific nation” (Cogo, 2012, p. 98). In the context of language learning and teaching, it can also mean “a reduced form of English, incorporating what textbook writers perceive to be the most relevant features of the language for communication between non-native speakers in
international contexts” (Gilmore, 2007, p. 104). The focus of ELF, therefore, can be said to be on intelligibility when speakers of English try to interact, adopting various strategies to complement breakdowns in communication, make themselves more understandable, and support their conversation (Cogo, 2012;
Gilmore, 2007; McKay, 2018).
English as an International Language (EIL) is also concerned with content and interaction between speakers, but it can be distinguished from ELF in that the use of English for international communication should be based on specific principles as follows (McKay, 2018):
1. Given the varieties of English spoken today and the diversity of L2 learning contexts, all pedagogical decisions regarding standards and curriculum should be made in reference to local language needs and local social and educational factors.
2. The widely accepted belief that an English-only classroom is the most productive for language learning needs to be fully examined; in addition, careful thought should be given to how best to use the L1 in developing language proficiency.
3. Attention to the development of strategic intercultural competence should exist in all EIL classrooms.
4. EIL is not linked to a particular social/cultural context in the same way that French, Korean or Japanese are intricately associated with a particular culture. In this way EIL is or should be culturally neutral.
(McKay, 2018, p. 11)
EIL and WEs, thus, seem to share some underlying assumptions that there exist different varieties of English spoken around the world, and each variety of English has its own distinctive features, which may reflect speakers’ L1 and culture (McKay, 2018). ELF also relates to WEs in that both of them are based on the belief that “effective communication in English involves deferring to ENL (English as a native language) norms as a fiction” (Jenkins, 2009, p. 206);
according to Jenkins (2009), ELF is a question of “mutual negotiation involving efforts and adjustments from all parties,” not of “orientation to the norms of a particular group of English speakers” (p. 201).
Accordingly, despite the subtle differences, both EIL and ELF appear to reflect the belief that English belongs to all who use it and emphasize its international use rather than claiming that there is a single, unitary variety of
English (Brown, 2014; Young & Walsh, 2010), which is in line with what WEs research has suggested.
3 MODELS FOR ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION
3.1 Native Speaker Model
The most predominant model for English language education until the early 1990s and perhaps still in most Expanding Circle countries may be a native speaker model (Coşkun, 2013; Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006;
Mukminatien, 2012; Phan, 2018; Rivers, 2013; Ruecker & Ives, 2015; Sadeghpour
& Sharifian, 2017; Sowden, 2011; Wang, 2015; Young & Walsh, 2010), which is based on “the belief that ‘native speaker’ teachers represent a ‘Western culture’
from which spring the ideals both of the English language and of English teaching methodology” (Holliday as cited in Holliday, 2006, p. 385). Despite the fact that the majority of English speakers are non-native speakers who use it for international communication and that English is used for various purposes in multiple new contexts, there still seems to exist “a strong tendency to cling to the traditional native-speaker as the final arbiter or authority about appropriate usage” (Foley, 2007, p. 7). In fact, while recent published English textbooks have claimed that they are targeting all English learners over the world, their reference to native English speakers and their cultures tends to outstrip the reference to Outer- and Expanding Circle countries (Khodadady & Shayesteh, 2016).
In this model, a native-like command of the English language is encouraged, learners being evaluated according to native speaker English norms (Gu & So, 2015; Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006;
Mukminatien, 2012; Young & Walsh, 2010). In most cases, Englishes of Inner Circle countries, particularly American English and British English, are used as pedagogical models, being considered as standard Englishes (Jayanti &
Norahmi, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Sung, 2016). For instance, English teaching practices in Indonesia often establish a goal towards native speaker norms;
teachers try to explain all the grammatical rules, drill students on native-like
pronunciation, provide samples of conversation between native speakers, encourage students to speak like native speakers, and correct what they believe non-standard forms of English, based on the belief that students should have near-native command of English to be able to successfully communicate and interact in English (Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015).
The rationale behind the choice of native speaker models is that they have legitimacy and prestige; Englishes spoken in Inner Circle contexts have history as well as being codified, which helps them look more appropriate as standard Englishes (Kirkpatrick, 2006). It is also said that native speaker models provide many learning and teaching resources such as dictionaries and grammar books, helping both learners and teachers (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Linguistic knowledge and information about target culture that native English speaking teachers can provide, both as language models and as cultural resources themselves, is another frequently cited advantage of native speaker models (Á rva, & Medgyes, 2000).
Native speaker models, thus, allow native speakers of English to get a more favorable position in teacher recruitment than their non-native counterparts (Coşkun, 2013; Kirkpatrick, 2006). The English Program in Korea (EPIK) in Korea, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) program in Japan, and Native-speaking English Teacher (NET) Scheme in Hong Kong are examples of government-initiated efforts to improve English education system by hiring more native English speaking teachers (Coşkun, 2013). The Turkey government also launched a project to hire 40,000 native English speaking teachers from Inner Circle countries including Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US, who could teach in Turkish EFL contexts with local Turkish teachers of English (Coşkun, 2013).
Investigating websites recruiting teachers for language schools in five Asian countries (i.e., China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand) and analyzing textual and visual characteristics shown in the websites, Ruecker and Ives (2015) stated that ideal candidates described in the websites were “young, White, enthusiastic native speaker[s] of English from a stable list of inner-circle
countries” (p. 733), with less emphasis given to teaching experience. This preference for native speakers is often found among English learners; in a study of 80 Japanese university students, Rivers (2013) found that Japanese students, after reading profiles of six English teachers working in Japan, rated white, native speakers of English as the most desirable English teachers.
3.2 WEs Approach
Since the 2000s, an increasing number of studies have raised the question about the validity of the English native speaker model in English language teaching (Cook, 1999; Coşkun, 2013; Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Ruecker
& Ives, 2015; Young & Walsh, 2010). For instance, a definition of a native speaker has become elusive, “an idealized figure conforming only very loosely, if at all, to the actual usage of the majority of first language (L1) speakers”
(Young & Walsh, 2010, p. 124). The inefficacy of the English native speaker model has been bolstered by the fact that it undermines the value of local teachers as the source of knowledge; they are required to teach a model they do not speak, their knowledge of their students and their experience as language learners themselves being ignored (Kirkpatrick, 2006). The native speaker model has been also criticized for the reason that the model itself is unrealistic and unattainable (Cook, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 2006); students are often frustrated and ashamed when they do not speak English like a native speaker, unwilling to experiment with the language, thus feeling demotivated (Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015).
Moreover, as English speakers in Outer and Expanding Circles outnumber those in Inner Circle countries (Abeywickrama, 2013; Ahn & Kang, 2017; Barnes, 2005; Kim & Kim, 2018; Orikasa, 2016; Sadeghpour & Sharifian, 2017; Sung, 2013; Sung, 2016; Young & Walsh, 2010), the role of English as “a heterogeneous language based on multiple forms” has become important, escaping from “the traditional view of English based on the native speaker norm” (Gu & So, 2015, p.
10). This is to say, English has been considered as an international language
among people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, who may no longer try to assimilate themselves into Inner Circle communities; multiple varieties of English developed and used in Outer- and Expanding- Circle countries are advocated as legitimate varieties, the term world Englishes
─rather than “English” alone─ being frequently used (Gu & So, 2015;
Kobayashi, 2011; Lee & Hsieh, 2018; Young & Walsh, 2010).
Indeed, as Matsuda (2003) pointed out, the native speaker model might not be suitable for many language learners in Expanding Circle countries, given that they are more likely to use English with other non-native speakers of English in Outer and Expanding Circles than with native speakers in Inner Circle countries.
The WEs approach in English learning and teaching, therefore, challenges the native speaker model and values local linguistic and cultural influences on the English language (Brown, 2014; Gu & So, 2015; Kim & Kim, 2018;
Mukminatien, 2012). In this model, different varieties of English are viewed as legitimate and thereby can be used as models in English language learning and teaching (Brown, 2014; Gu & So, 2015). The norms and usages of native speakers of English are no longer emphasized, with the focus being on global intelligibility, cultural information, and communicative strategies that can support cross-cultural communication (Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015; Kang, 2015;
Kirkpatrick, 2006; Mukminatien, 2012; Young & Walsh, 2010). In pronunciation instruction, for example, both teachers and learners are encouraged to set a realistic goal: improved intelligibility, rather than pursuing native-like pronunciation (Derwing, & Munro, 2005; Mukminatien, 2012).
Closely related to the WEs model is a nativized model, or what Brown (2014) calls locally defined EIL approach. This model is based on local needs for the English language, all the choices regarding objectives, content, resources, strategies, and context of English learning and teaching coming from a careful needs analysis of the language (Brown, 2014). In this model, a local variety of English is perceived as a socially acceptable, legitimate language, and the goal becomes both attainable and realistic (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Countries that are
likely to adopt this approach are those in the Outer Circle like Singapore, where its English variety has gradually replaced a native speaker model (Kirkpatrick, 2006).
The WE research has reported advantages that the WEs or nativized model can offer. First, it exposes learners to other diverse Englishes than just Inner Circle Englishes, which they are more likely to encounter in the real world (Gilmore, 2007; Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015).
Second, not only does it motivate learners by increasing their self- confidence but it also empowers teachers as role models for students, who may speak Outer- or Expanding- Circle Englishes, which are equally legitimate as those in Inner Circle (Coşkun, 2013; Jayanti & Norahmi, 2015; Kirkpatrick, 2006).
As a good example of successful language learners, local teachers (i.e., non- native English speaking teachers) can provide learners with more useful information about language learning by helping them make good use of first language and by helping them use proper language learning strategies (Coşkun, 2013). Local teachers can also predict language difficulties that students may encounter in their learning process, understand linguistic and cultural needs of their students, and thereby help them better learn the English language (Coşkun, 2013).
The WEs approach can also help learners to better understand other cultures and therefore regard the world from a broader perspective by teaching them there are different varieties of English spoken in different parts of the world, each of which is equally important and worth to learn (Jayanti &
Norahmi, 2015).
Despite the advantages mentioned above, the WEs approach has also raised some critical questions such as how to distinguish learner errors from features of varieties in the process of language learning (Hamid & Baldauf Jr, 2013; Mukminatien, 2012; Sowden, 2011). Although it can be said that varieties are characterized by intelligibility, acceptability, and systemicity, thereby differentiated from errors, it does not seem to be always easy to draw a clear
line between what is intelligible, acceptable, and systematic, and what is unintelligible, unacceptable and unsystematic (Hamid & Baldauf Jr, 2013).
Another controversial issue, especially among language teachers, is what form or forms of language to be adopted while trying to teach EIL and which target language culture should be dealt with in language classrooms (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2018; Gilmore, 2007). Language learners should be able to develop awareness of basic phonological features of the language as well as lexical and grammatical aspects before they could recognize variation in language forms and uses (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2018). What forms of language to use in language classrooms, then, becomes one of the main concerns that make pedagogical decisions even more complicated (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2018;
Gilmore, 2007).
Furthermore, Sowden (2011) expressed concern about attitudinal difficulty that both teachers and learners might face. According to him, teachers and students might compromise their “academic self-image” and limit their
“professional aspirations” (p. 92) if they are forced to accept and use different varieties of English, which they have taught and learned to teat as inferior. That is, teachers and learners, when compelled to embrace the diversity in English, whose varieties other than native ones have been thought to be inferior, might think that they are teaching and learning less important, illegitimate varieties, which makes them feel less academic and unprofessional.
4 ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN KOREA
Since adopted as a regular subject at secondary schools in the 1950s, English has become a crucial part of education in Korea to be included in the primary school curriculum in 1997 (Byean, 2015; Cho, 2004).
English language education in Korea, particularly in school contexts, has been characterized by a high level of dependence on grammar and reading, little exposure to spoken English, and exam-oriented lessons despite all the changes in education policy to promote communicative skills and encourage cooperative learning in learner-centered classes (Cho, 2004; Moodie & Nam, 2016). Indeed, many of English teachers in Korea tend to take teacher-centered approaches for their instruction, focusing on written forms of English and teaching skills required to answer exam questions, because secondary schools are generally thought of as preparatory steps for college admission, for which getting good grades on tests including the College Scholastic Aptitude Test is extremely important (Cho, 2004; Moodie & Nam, 2016).
Another characteristic of English education in Korea is that it is based on the native speaker model. As stated earlier, the ability to deal with linguistically and culturally diverse contexts and to interact with people from varying backgrounds has become increasingly important in English language teaching in this globalized world. In the context of Korea ─one of the countries from the Expanding Circle─ while the revised national English language curriculum sees English as “a major means of communication between people from different linguistic backgrounds” (Korean Ministry of Education, 2015, p. 3), embracing cultural diversity and cross-linguistic and cross-cultural differences, it is undeniable that English language education in Korea still centers on the native speaker model (Ahn & Kang, 2017; Byean, 2015; Choi, 2016; Fayzrakhmanova, 2016; Song, 2013).
In other words, native-like English proficiency has often been a major goal of English education in Korea (Choi, 2016), allowing the government to consistently pursue English policies such as “placing native-English-speaking
teachers in public schools” and “teaching English using a policy of English only (TEE)” (Byean, 2015, p. 874). The Teaching English in English only (TEE) policy, which has been supported by the TEE certification policy, according to Byean (2015), has functioned as a means to evaluate English teachers in Korea based on their language proficiency. It has also contributed to justifying “dominant ideologies of monolingual instruction as well as native-speakerism” (p. 874), which may in turn have helped to create the misunderstanding that good English to be learned is the one from Inner Circle countries spoken by white people (Byean, 2015).
Moreover, the majority of English textbooks for secondary school students in Korea are based on American English, not providing students with enough opportunities to be exposed to different varieties of English (Park, 2017). Kwon and Lim (2018), through the analysis of 11 Korean High School English textbooks, for instance, suggested that although European and Asian cultures showed high distribution (i.e., 26.7 per cent and 20.3 per cent, respectively) regarding cultural background, the percentage of Inner Circle English cultures was still the highest (i.e., 28.4 per cent), whereas other cultures such as African and Latin American cultures were rarely addressed.
Foreign English teacher recruitment systems in Korea also demonstrate how dependent English education in Korea has become on the native speaker model. Every year, hundreds of thousands of English native speakers are coming to Korea to teach English in schools, academic institutes, or English villages, where native speakers are believed to be better qualified to teach the English language compared to non-native speakers (Ahn & Kang, 2017;
Fayzrakhmanova, 2016; Kirkpatrick, 2006); quite often, being a native speaker is the only qualification as seen in the past Korean government’s advertisements for native speaker English teachers in the Korean Herald below (Kirkpatrick as cited in Kirkpatrick, 2006, p. 6):
Type 1 teachers require a Certificate in TESOL or three years full-time teaching experience with a graduate degree in TESOL or experience and interest in Korean culture and language.
Type 2 teachers only have to be native speakers of English with a bachelor's degree in any field.
In other words, without pedagogical studies in the English language, anyone who had “experience and interest in Korean culture and language” appeared to teach English in Korea only if he or she is a native speaker of English (Kirkpatrick, 2006). Two government-established programs of English Program in Korea (EPIK, created in 1995) and Teach and Learn in Korea (TaLK, created in 2008) as part of educational reforms to enhance English-speaking abilities of students and teachers, promote cultural exchanges, and reform English teaching methods, are not free from the native speaker norm, either (Choi, 2016;
Wang & Lin, 2013). The EPIK teachers, for example, should hold bachelor degrees and be citizens of countries where English is used as a primary language of communication (Wang & Lin, 2013). The following are current selection criteria that EPIK applicants must meet, published in the website of the National Institute for International Education of the Ministry of Education, Korea (http://www.niied.go.kr/eng/main.do):
Applicants must
Be a citizen of one of the seven designated English-speaking countries
*Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, U.K., U.S.A.
Hold a minimum of a bachelor’s degree from an accredited university
Have a good command of the English language
Have the ability and willingness to adapt to Korean culture and lifestyle
Be mentally and physically healthy
Still, one of the most important prerequisites for becoming an EPIK teacher is being a native speaker of English, and one does not need to have teaching qualifications or experience in order to be an EPIK teacher in Korea although those who have experience or qualifications in language teaching might be paid more (Wang & Lin, 2013). As Choi (2016) notes, by designating English- speaking countries as seven countries that are Inner Circle countries, the EPIK program appears to strengthen the ideology of native-speakerism that English spoken by native speakers from the Inner Circle is the only English that should be learned and taught as a language model (Choi, 2016).
Furthermore, the emphasis of English instruction in Korea, as with most of other Expanding Circle countries, is placed on the mastery of English from the Inner Circle; American (or sometimes British) English is perceived as the standard with a prestigious status, by which one’s English proficiency can and should be assessed (Ahn, 2015; Ahn & Kang, 2017; Fayzrakhmanova, 2016;
Kirkpatrick, 2006; Lee & Hsieh, 2018). In fact, the most commonly found English variety in textbooks and high-stakes testing in Korea is American English (Ahn, 2015; Ahn & Kang, 2017; Fayzrakhmanova, 2016; Kirkpatrick, 2006; Lee & Hsieh, 2018). According to Song (2013), high school English textbooks in Korea, which are presumed to reflect the national curriculum, appear to favor American English and culture over others; most of the texts, where white American male characters play a dominant role, are narrated in the US variety while other varieties from Outer- and Expanding- Circle countries are ignored.
This strong preference for American English is also found in many tests implemented in Korea including the College Scholastic Ability Test as well as English education policies (Ahn & Kang, 2017), thereby English becoming a synonym of American English for most Koreans. Indeed, most of test items in English Listening Test, which is organized by 15 education offices in Korea and administered to almost all secondary school students in Korea, are recorded by voice actors speaking American English (15 test items out of 20), the rest by those speaking British English (Park, 2017).
5 PERCEPTIONS OF WE
SSince the emergence of the term “World Englishes,” there has been much research on language teachers’ and/or learners’ awareness of and attitudes towards different varieties of English, as attitudes to a language, according to Dörnyei (2006) and Gardner (1985, 2001), are among major factors that influence L2 learning motivation, which in turn can affect the whole process of L2 learning (as cited in Kormos & Csizér, 2008). Attitudes, here, are defined as
“one’s or a group’s evaluation of the relative value of that language” including
“some sort of prejudices about the speaker and the community using the language to which the speaker belongs” (Nguyen & Hamid, 2016, p. 89).
5.1 Teachers’ Perceptions of WEs
Studies on WEs have reported teachers’ hesitation in incorporating more diverse WEs into their teaching despite their positive attitudes to the concept of EIL and related changes in the English language (Dogancay-Aktuna, 2018);
teachers in many studies often did not have a clear idea of WEs and continued to value teaching English from the Inner Circle as the most proper instructional model although they seemed to understand the diversity in the English language and the need to change some of their teaching practices to some extent (Ahn, 2015; Dogancay-Aktuna, 2018; Gu & So, 2015; Phan, 2018; Sadeghpour &
Sharifian, 2017; Takahashi, 2017; Wong , 2018; Young & Walsh, 2010).
For example, in a study of 33 English teachers in Vietnam, Phan (2018) concluded that while the teachers acknowledged that English was a pluralistic language having different varieties, they were reluctant to teach English varieties other than what they called standard. After providing handouts containing information on WEs, Phan conducted focus group interviews with the participants, which revealed their preference for American English and British English as an instructional model despite their awareness of the diversity in the English language and perceived importance of knowing about it.
By noting that nearly half of the teachers raised the possibility of going beyond native speaker models, questioning the definition of so-called standard English, Phan speculated that teaching constraints teachers faced in Vietnam such as
“the lack of teaching materials and examinations that reflect the diversity of English” (p. 383) led them to prioritize native speaker models.
Similarly, in order to explore the value of EIL from teachers’ perspectives, Young and Walsh (2010) conducted a study of 26 non-native English speaking teachers studying at the same university in the UK, who were asked to participate in focus group interviews after reading articles about EIL and English native speaker models. Individual interviews with two volunteers from each group were also conducted after the focus group interviews to make sure that the views expressed in group discussion were not affected by group pressures. The authors pointed out that the teachers favored native speaker models, more concerned with selecting and adapting an appropriate variety to their local context rather than with issues on the EIL, although they found the concept of the EIL attractive.
Takahashi (2017), through questionnaire survey, focus group discussion, and interviews, also suggested that high school English teachers in Japan were concerned about inclusion of non-standard varieties of English in textbooks although they were open to the idea of including an extract informing learners of the existence of different English varieties.
Teachers in Wong’s research (2018) appeared to display more negative attitudes towards using English varieties other than English from the Inner Circle. Twenty one pre-service EFL teachers in Hong Kong participated in her study by completing a questionnaire and a listening task, four of whom attended a focus group interview. The results indicated that the participants had negative opinions about using the localized English accent (i.e., the Hong Kong English accent) as a teaching and learning model; they preferred native English as a teaching model and favored the UK accent over other English accents.
In a similar vein, Sadeghpour and Sharifian (2017) investigated English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers’ attitudes towards WEs and found that not many teachers regard the Expanding Circle Englishes as legitimate. Twenty seven ESL teachers in Australia were interviewed for their study; 14 of them were Asian migrants to Australia, while the rest were English native speakers with experience of teaching English in Asian country. Analysis of the interview implied that while most of the teachers acknowledged that there existed new varieties of English, more than half of them did not recognize the legitimacy of English varieties from the Expanding Circle, some of whom did not even name these Englishes as English varieties.
In Korea, Ahn (2015) showed that not only were teachers ignorant of Asian Englishes, but they also repudiated the legitimacy of those Englishes; the majority of the teachers had negative attitudes towards Asian Englishes, describing these Englishes as problematic, difficult, or strange, and showed little desire to learn these Englishes. Although there were some teachers who had international experiences and thus held more positive attitudes towards these Englishes, in general, Asian Englishes tended to be stigmatized as wrong Englishes by teachers of English in Korea while American English was favored as the prestigious English (Ahn, 2015).
In the context of language testing, previous research suggests that teachers are more likely to be cautious about the inclusion of more diverse WEs (Gu &
So, 2015). According to Gu and So (2015), both ESL teachers (i.e., teachers who teach English in places like the US and South Africa where English is used as an L1 or an L2) and EFL teachers (i.e., teachers who teach English in places like China and Korea where English is used as a FL) (Kang, 2015) were less supportive of incorporating English varieties from Outer- and Expanding- Circle countries; while the teachers showed positive attitudes towards including different English varieties from the Inner Circle, regarding non-native varieties, especially in terms of accents and written conventions, their responses were less positive.
5.2 Learners’ Perceptions of WEs
Previous research on WEs, in general, appears to indicate that learners, when compared to teachers, have lower awareness of and less positive attitudes towards WEs, although they tend to be open to WEs for less stressful, communicative uses (Abeywickrama, 2013; Gu & So, 2015; Kang, 2015;
Kobayashi, 2011; Lee & Hsieh, 2018; Lee & Warren Green, 2016; Saito & Hatoss, 2011; Sung, 2016; Takahashi, 2017).
More specifically, Sung (2016) noted that university students in Hong Kong, although they did understand the value of multiple accents of English, were questioning the idea of being exposed to different English accents in classrooms, preferring a native variety as the instructional model. In order to draw that conclusion, he conducted a study of students enrolled in an English for Academic Purposes course at a university in Hong Kong: 28 for the interview and 318 for the questionnaire. By highlighting the fact that the participants showed ambivalent attitudes towards exposure of various English accents in language classrooms, Sung asserted that “a careful and systematic approach to introducing multiple varieties of English must be in place before any attempts to incorporate a world Englishes approach in the classroom” (p.
203).
Kang (2015), through her study of adult ESL or EFL students, also maintained that English learners, particularly those in the Expanding Circle, preferred to strive for Inner Circle norms, noting that they were not satisfied with their teachers’ English pronunciation while expressing their desire to sound like a native speaker. A total of 617 adult learners of English participated in questionnaire survey for her study: 238 learners of English who were studying English in the Inner Circle countries (i.e., the US and New Zealand), 194 in the Outer Circle countries (i.e., Pakistan and South Africa), and 185 in the Expanding Circle countries (i.e., Japan and Korea). The results indicated that learners studying English in the Expanding Circle countries were less satisfied with their pronunciation instruction, compared to those in the Inner and Outer Circles.
Investigating Japanese students’ motives for learning English in one of the Outer Circle countries, Singapore, Kobayashi (2011) further stated that Japanese learners of English in Singapore, in general, seemed to yearn for Inner Circle Englishes taught by white, native speakers of English although they also wanted to develop friendships with other students including Singaporeans. She conducted a study of 22 Japanese students and seven administrative/teaching staff in three private language schools in Singapore, based on student questionnaires, interview with students, and formal and informal meetings with the staff. Results implied that one of the most decisive factor that motivated most of the students to study English in Singapore was their
“perceived image of Singapore as a ‘standard English’ speaking country” (p.
243), which might help explain students’ disappointment on their unanticipated encounter with Singapore English and teachers’ concern about students’
expectations of learning Inner Circle Englishes from European-looking teachers.
In a similar vein, Takahashi (2017) asserted that educators need to
“continue to discuss when, how, and to whom non-standard forms of English can be introduced” (p. 50) by pointing out that Japanese students in her study were less positive about including non-native varieties of English in their course books as well as less open to multiple varieties than the teachers.
With regard to learners’ attitudes towards WEs, Abeywickrama’s study (2013) revealed that English language learners in her study (i.e., university students who had learned English as an L2 or a FL and would attend US universities) had rather unfavorable attitudes towards non-native varieties of English despite the fact that English varieties did not affect their performance in the listening test; the majority of participants preferred American and British English, considering it the standard, as opposed to the reality where English is used by more non-native speakers than native speakers.
Saito and Hatoss (2011), likewise, investigated 175 Japanese high school students’ attitudes towards different varieties of English through questionnaire survey, and found that Japanese learners of English had more positive attitudes towards native varieties of English (i.e., UK and US varieties), whereas
devaluing other non-native varieties of English (i.e., China, India, Japan, and Singapore varieties), especially Japanese variety of English. They also claimed that Japanese students were learning English for “its intra-Anglosphere currency and utility, rather than for its transnational functionality in the global arena” (p. 118), noting their high motivation to learn English in native speaker contexts.
In respect of including a variety of WEs in academic English tests, learners have shown further reservations. For instance, Gu and So (2015) investigated stakeholders’ (i.e., test takers, teachers, score users, and language testing professionals) perceptions of accommodating differences in international academic English tests. They found out that students, although they were generally positive about including different English varieties from the Inner Circle as both oral and written input in tests, were more resistant to the idea of embracing different varieties of English as the oral input than the other three groups, believing that English should be measured in accordance with the native speaker norm. This tendency became more pronounced when the input was thought to be Outer- or Expanding- Circle Englishes.
In a study by Hamid (2014), English learners also assumed negative attitudes towards including different varieties of English in the International English Language Testing System (IELTS); although the participants (i.e., 430 IELTS test takers from 49 countries) supported WEs in a broader and more abstract sense, they were against their inclusion in the test, judging concrete examples of WEs unacceptable.
In the case of Korea, Lee and Warren Green (2016) implied that Korean university students preferred Inner Circle Englishes as well as showing better understanding of them although they were also interested in being exposed to and learning WEs, especially for less stressful and more communicative uses.
Through a study of 60 university students in Korea, they found that Englishes from the US and the UK were perceived the easiest forms of English by the students, whereas Englishes from Outer- or Expanding- Circle countries were thought to be more difficult to comprehend. They also noted that while more
than half of the participants (i.e., 65 per cent), when asked which form of English ─between Inner Circle Englishes and Outer- and Expanding- Circle Englishes─ was thought to be more important, reported that it was more important to learn Inner Circle Englishes, none of them responded learning Outer- or Expanding- Circle Englishes was more important; only 35 per cent of the respondents said that learning both Inner Circle Englishes and Outer- or Expanding- Circle Englishes was important.
Lee and Hsieh (2018) also maintained that although both Taiwanese and Korean university students supported general concepts of EIL and perceived their varieties of English as positive, non-native English-speaking accents and interaction between non-native speakers of English were less accepted by Korean students. A study conducted by Kim and Kim (2018), similarly, suggested that Korean adult learners preferred Inner Circle Englishes despite their positive attitudes towards WEs.
Ahn and Kang’s study (2017), on the contrary, presented different results;
not only did Korean students hold positive attitudes towards Korean accent English over the Italian, Indian, and even American counterparts, they also revealed a similar level of desire to communicate with non-native speakers as with American native speakers. In more detail, 101 university students in an English course at a university in Korea participated in their study and were required to complete three different tasks: (a) a country rating task, where the participants rated Englishes used in 45 different countries according to familiarity, correctness, pleasantness, and friendliness, (b) a questionnaire asking participants’ perceptions of diverse English varieties spoken by four speakers of different nationalities (i.e., the United States, India, Italy, and Korea), and (c) a self-assessment of learning English as a foreign language and learning of multiple varieties of English. The findings implied that extra-linguistic factors such as familiarity with certain countries or accents may have affected the students’ perceptions of different English varieties, presenting the need for providing EFL learners with more opportunities to experience multiple varieties of English in order to broaden their “awareness of the linguistic reality
in the globalized world” (p. 724) where speakers from both the Inner Circle and the Outer/Expanding Circles communicate and interact with one another.
In sum, as opposed to the reality that English is used by more non-native speakers than native speakers as well as a view shared by research literature that English is an international language embracing diversity, both teachers and learners in general tend to prefer the Inner Circle English to other varieties, considering it ‘standard,’ ‘legitimate,’ and ‘prestigious.’ Although they recognize the need to embrace cultural differences and accept different varieties of English to some extent, they seem to favor a native variety, especially as an instructional model.
6 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
As mentioned earlier, English language instruction in Korea, in the contexts of WEs, still centers on the native speaker model (Ahn & Kang, 2017;
Fayzrakhmanova, 2016; Song, 2013). Furthermore, both teachers and students in Korea seem to prefer Inner Circle Englishes to other varieties, some of them even denying the legitimacy of Outer- and Expanding- Circle Englishes (Ahn, 2015; Lee & Hsieh, 2018). However, in Ahn and Kang’s study (2017), Korean students’ attitudes towards both Korean accents and non-native speakers were positive. These rather conflicting results might be attributed to the fact that relatively little research has investigated WEs from teachers’ and students’
perspectives in the context of Korea.
The aim of this study is, therefore, to examine Korean teachers’ and students’ perceptions of WEs, building on the previous work on WEs, and provide some pedagogical suggestions for English language education in Korea.
The research questions for this study are:
1. What knowledge do Korean teachers and students have about WEs?
2. Which varieties of English have Korean teachers and students learned, taught, and been exposed to?
3. What are the attitudes of Korean teachers and students towards incorporating more diverse WEs in English language education in Korea?
7 METHODS
7.1 Participants
Two groups participated in this study. The first group provided speech samples of WEs, serving as speakers, and the second group, as survey participants, completed questionnaires while listening to the speech samples.
Four graduate students who were studying at a university in Finland for a master’s degree in Education, and one teacher who was teaching at the same university participated as speakers. The teacher was an L1 English speaker from the UK, and the graduate students were either L1 or L2 speakers of English from China, Finland, India, and the US. They were fluent speakers of English, studying or teaching the international master’s degree program taught in English; students needed to prove their English proficiency in order to be accepted to the program (e.g., 580 + on paper-based TOEFL). All the five participants were female.
The second group, on the other hand, was further divided into two: (a) Korean English teachers (n=51) and (b) Korean learners of English (n=79). The teachers were Korean teachers of English employed at public schools (three at primary schools, 12 at lower secondary schools, 27 at general upper secondary schools, and 9 at vocational upper secondary schools) in a small municipality of Korea. This small municipality was chosen because it was where the researcher had worked as a teacher for 15 years, enabling her to reach many participants in a short time. Most of the teachers were female (i.e., 84.3 per cent) and were working at schools located in a city (i.e., 80.4 per cent). More than half of the teachers (i.e., 56.9 per cent) were in their 30s, about half of them (i.e., 49 per cent) having 5 to 14 years of teaching experience. About 71 per cent of the teachers had lived/studied in English-speaking countries, the length of residence/study varying from 2 to 120 months (M= 15.63, SD= 20.03) (see Table 1).
TABLE 1 Background Information: Teachers
N Percent
Gender Male 7 13.7
Female 43 84.3
I prefer not to tell. 1 2.0
Total 51 100
Age Under 30 5 9.8
30 ~ 39 29 56.9
40 ~ 49 9 17.6
50 ~ 59 6 11.8
Over 59 2 3.9
Total 51 100
Teaching Experience Less than 5 years 9 17.6
5 ~ 14 years 25 49.0
15 ~ 24 years 10 19.6
25 years or more 7 13.7
Total 51 100
Experience Living/Studying in English-Speaking
countries
Yes 36 70.6
No 15 29.4
Total 51 100
School Level Primary school 3 5.9
Lower secondary school 12 23.5
General upper secondar school 27 52.9 Vocational upper secondary school 9 17.6
Total 51 100
School Location City 41 80.4
Country 10 19.6
Total 51 100
Participants for the student group were recruited among college freshmen from different universities located in different regions in Korea. College freshmen were chosen because they had recently graduated from secondary schools, thus more likely to represent perspectives of secondary school students, while looking at their school lives more objectively, connecting what they had learned with real life experience after one semester of college. All the student participants had attended high schools (i.e., upper secondary schools) in the same municipality as the teachers. They were Korean learners of English (21 male and 57 female) who had studied English at least from primary schools;
public English education in Korea does not start until the third grade in
primary school. As one of the purposes of this study was to explore ordinary Korean students’ perceptions of WEs, not necessarily those majoring in English, restrictions on major or English skills were not imposed. Consequently, more than 80 percent of the students were majoring in other than English, and about 90 percent of them had never lived or studied in English-speaking countries.
Regarding English skills, about 42 percent of the students considered their English poor or not good, while about 23 percent of the students rated them as good or very good (see Table 2).
TABLE 2 Background Information: Students
N Percent
Gender Male 21 26.6
Female 57 72.2
I prefer not to tell. 1 1.3
Total 79 100
Age 18 ~ 19 59 74.7
20 ~ 21 18 22.8
Over 22 1 1.3
I prefer not to tell. 1 1.3
Total 79 100
Major English Language 15 19.0
Education 4 5.1
Others 60 75.9
Total 79 100
Duration of learning English
Less than 10 years 29 36.7
10 ~ 11 years 24 30.4
12 years or more 26 32.9
Total 79 100
Experience Living/Studying Yes 8 10.1
in English-Speaking countries
No 71 89.9
Total 79 100
English Skills Very Good 1 1.3
Good 17 21.5
Average 28 35.4
Not good 29 36.7
Poor 4 5.1
Total 79 100
7.2 Instrument
Questionnaires, which are among the most frequently employed data collection methods in quantitative research (Dörnyei & Taguchi, 2009), were adapted from several previous studies (Ahn & Kang, 2017; Gu & So, 2015; Lee & Hsieh, 2018;
Sung, 2016; Takahashi, 2017) and recreated by the researcher. Some questionnaire items were adapted from interview questions used in the studies of Sadeghpour and Sharifian (2017) and Young and Walsh (2010), and recreated.
In addition to closed-ended questions which consisted of multiple choice questions and Likert-scale questions, open-ended questions were included in order to elicit more spontaneous, detailed responses from participants and to complement closed-ended questions that could sometimes bias participants’
answers due to the presence of predetermined answer alternatives (Dörnyei &
Taguchi, 2009; Peterson, 2000).
The questionnaires consisted of three sections. The first specified the purpose and procedures of the study, ensured anonymity of the survey, and asked for consent to participation in the study. The second section asked participants about their background information such as gender, age, length of time teaching or learning English, and experience of studying or living in English-speaking countries. The third section, which was the main part of the questionnaire, asked varieties of English that participants had learned, taught, and been exposed to, their understanding of the notion of WEs, and their attitudes towards incorporating more diverse WEs in English language education in Korea.
More specifically, the teacher questionnaire asked (a) which varieties of English the teachers had learned, were currently exposed to, and were teaching (i.e., Questions 1, 5, and 6), (b) what knowledge they had about WEs (i.e., Questions 2, 3, and 4), and after providing an explanation of WEs with sample speeches (i.e., Question 4), (c) how important they thought it was to include more diverse Englishes in English listening/speaking education and tests (i.e., Questions 7 and 8), and (d) whether they would like to change anything in their teaching practices with regard to WEs (i.e., Question 9). Some questions (i.e.,
